MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108147149 · doi:10.1191/0269215503cr601oa

Concurrent validity of an electronic descriptive pain scale

2003· article· en· W2108147149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger A. Scudds, David A. Fishbain, Rhonda J. Scudds

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnairePhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleRating scaleTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationMedicineConcurrent validityIntensity (physics)Descriptive statisticsPain scaleOutpatient clinicPain assessmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPain managementPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study objective was to assess the concurrent validity of the Electronic Descriptive Pain Scale (EDPS), a pain scale built into a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device. One hundred patients in an outpatient physiotherapy (PT) clinic participated (mean age 41.30 years, SD 13.95). Before and after a PT treatment, subjects rated their current pain intensity with the EDPS, a visual analogue scale, a numerical pain rating scale, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire's Present Pain Intensity. The results showed relatively high significant correlations between the EDPS and each of the other pain scales.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207